Your bullshit-ometer should be making an awful racket in response to the shifting
explanations given for the twenty-four-hour Iranian hostage scare involving
two US Navy boats intercepted in the Gulf.

First they told us “at least one of the boats” had experienced a “mechanical
failure.” Then they said the boats had run
out of fuel, although it wasn’t clear if they meant both boats. Then they
said “there was no mechanical problem.” Then they claimed that the two
crews had somehow not communicated with the military command, although “they
could not explain how the military had lost contact with not one but both of
the boats.” As the New York Times reported:

“Even as Mr. Kerry was describing the release
on Wednesday morning, American military officials were offering new explanations
about how the two 49-foot patrol boats, formally called riverine command boats,
had ended up in Iranian territorial waters while cruising from Kuwait to Bahrain.”

And they still haven’t explained it – or any of the other distinctly odd circumstances
surrounding this incident.

The best they could do was have an anonymous Navy officer aver “When you’re
navigating in those waters, the space around it gets pretty tight.” However,
as the Times put it:

“But that is hardly a new problem, and the boats’ crews
would almost surely have mapped out their course in advance, paying close attention
to the Iranian boundary waters. And each boat has radio equipment on board,
so it was unclear how the crews suddenly lost communication with their base
unless they were surrounded by Iranian vessels before they could alert their
superiors.”

We are told they were on a “training mission” – but what kind of mission? The
Washington Post adds a helpful detail by telling
us that “The vessels, known as riverine command
boats, are agile and often carry Special Operations forces into smaller bodies
of water.”

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

Amid all the faux outrage coming from the neocons
and their enablers in the media over the alleged “humiliation”
of the US – Iran “paraded” the sailors in their media! They made one of the
sailors apologize! The Geneva Conventions were violated! – hardly anyone in
this country is asking the hard questions, first and foremost: what in heck
were those two boats doing in Iranian waters?

And if you believe they somehow “drifted” within
a few miles of Farsi Island, where a highly sensitive Iranian military base
is located, then you probably think there’s a lot of money just waiting for
you in a Nigerian bank account.

Anyone who thinks the adversarial relationship between Washington and Tehran
has turned into “détente” due to the nuclear deal is living in Never-Never Land.
Our close ally, Saudi Arabia, has all but declared war on the Iranians and that
means we are being dragged into the rapidly escalating conflict. In this context,
two US military boats coming a mile and a half away from a major Iranian base
in the Gulf isn’t an accident. This ‘training mission” was a military incursion,
and although we have no way of knowing what mission the US hoped to accomplish,
suffice to say that it wasn’t meant to be a kumbaya moment.

Rachel Maddow is also raising questions about this: after a load of nonsense about how showing the sailors
on Iranian media violated the Geneva Conventions – they didn’t: we aren’t at
war with Iran yet – she pointed out the suspicious nature of the Pentagon’s
shifting story during her January 13 broadcast.

To add another layer to the mystery, the Iranian
government released the sailors after holding them for less than twenty-four
hours – which isn’t the sort of behavior one might expect if those sailors were
on a spy mission. And the Iranians issued an Emily Litella-ish statement,
as
reported by the Los Angeles Times:

“’After explanations the U.S. gave and the
assurances they made, we determined that [the] violation of Iranian territorial
waters was not deliberate, so we guided the boats out of Iranian waters,’ said
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari, according to the official
Islamic Republic News Agency.”

So if those two boats were “snooping,”
as the Fars News Agency originally claimed, why would Tehran come out with
this all-is-forgiven statement?

None of it makes any sense, at least not until one realizes that the Iranian
government is hardly
a monolith: power is divided up between various agencies and factions, with
only the loosest sort of unity being enforced by the Supreme Leader. Farsi Island
is controlled by the hard-line Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC), the hard-line faction of the ruling elite, which wields
enormous political and economic power within the multi-polar Iranian state apparatus.
It was the hard-liners who released the video and photos of the American sailors
with their hands in the air, and their spokesmen demanded an apology from the
US. It was the diplomats, however – the moderates, who negotiated the Iran deal
– whose contacts with the US facilitated the sailors’ quick release.

But it isn’t just the Iranians who are riven with factions and conflicting
lines of authority: the American empire is overseen by a vast national security
bureaucracy involving both military and civilians, and it isn’t monolithic,
either. Although, in theory, civilians are in the drivers’ seat and the military
just follows orders, in reality the Pentagon is an independent power that can
obstruct or even effectively veto whatever diplomatic or military plans the
White House has in mind. And while opposition to the nuke deal was centered
in Congress, the Pentagon
insisted at the last moment that sanctions on conventional arms and particularly
those related to ballistic missiles remain in place. Iran’s recent
testing of medium range ballistic missiles must have the generals in an
uproar, and it could well be that this “training mission” in the Gulf was related
– as either a spying mission, or an outright provocation designed to imperil
relations. Or perhaps both.

We’ll probably never know for sure: but what we certainly can know is that
the official explanation for this latest incident stinks to high heaven. There’s
no denying we were caught by the Iranians with our pants down. The only question
is – how were we trying to f—k them over?

I warned
after the signing of the Iran deal that we are in for a long series of provocations
in the Gulf, and this is only the beginning. In order to keep all this in perspective,
just remember that the long dance between Washington and Tehran involves at
least four partners, including their hard-liners and ours.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here.
But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often
made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

This provocation deserves a reminder that the Tonkin Gulf incident leading to authorization of the Vietnam War was itself a provocation. Those two destroyers were deliberately trolling for trouble, part of an operation to land spies in the North. It wasn't by chance that the Norths torpedo boats came out.

Johnny in Wi.

Great essay! Were the guys out water skiing or deep sea fishing? Your right. It's BS.

nomorewaryouprats

No, it was the S.S. Minnow lost on a three mile cruise ("Emily Litella" dates Justin, and me, as well).

Living as we do during an age of rapidly disintegrating Empire, Justin draws the only rational conclusion to be had about this event. Clearly, there is some kind of skullduggery afoot here. The only question here is whether the subterfuge is of a major or minor nature.

The most troubling suspicion is that this was a plot by his neocon enemies, literally on the eve of his final SOTU address, and days before sanctions relief and renewed congressional scrutiny, to gin up a crisis with which to scuttle Obama's nuke deal and "normalization" of relations with Tehran.

Perhaps less troubling, but in a different sort of way because it bespeaks factional rivalry within the Deep State breaking out into the open, is that Obama himself connived with the Iranians to arrange a non-event to be settled "diplomatically" in order to preempt his adversaries from unravelling his fragile compact with Iran — during the short window of time the sailors were detained he left himself wide open to the usual hysterical opprobrium from every manner of warhawk, but one day later his allies within the MSM were hailing his diplomatic success. Not coincidentally, if it was a ruse, Iran's hardliners were afforded the opportunity to appear tough standing up to the Great Satan on global television. By this reading, for the nuke deal to hold and for detente to proceed, various factions must be thwarted or placated, even if by illusion.

More in the way of routine skullduggery would be if the mystifying actions of the riverine patrol boats were intended as a diversion for some other kind of skullduggery, say the insertion of operatives by underwater submersible along the Iranian coast while the Revolutionary Guards' attention was focused on the happenings at Farsi Island fifty miles away in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

The least likely scenario is that the hapless crew of the S.S. Minnow contingent simply found themselves lost at sea out of touch out of fuel. We have scarce reason to believe this was an "innocent" incursion. As Justin notes and as Greenwald writes in his Intercept column today, our media once again have covered themselves in crap through their lockstep stenographic non-critical reporting.

Prinzowhales

Yes, it is troubling…the silliness of the official story…the reported provocations of the USS ARTIFICIAL REEF…the Zio-Nazi shuffling of military commanders… (this reeks of the U-2 incident that scuttled talks with the USSR)…and then we have 'the Donald' waxing bellicose over Iran, the agreement and the capture of the sailors…

follyofwar

It wasn't just Trump beating his chest, it was all of 'em.

Prinzowhales

Trump is the most troubling, however…He has previously voiced his displeasure over the Iranian deal and–if memory serves–said something about forcing a new one which brings us back to square one on Iran…This is in contrast with his opinions on Syria and Iraq.

I don't recall who his banks were…but, I would bet they were the same big names whose proprietors should be hung…He could well be the ace-in-the-hole for the Zio-Nazi Gang…forcing a war over the mythical Iranian nuclear weapons…

I expect the others to 'beat their chests'…they toe the Israeli line and there just isn't a Israeli butt that they would not lick raw on command…Trump hints that he is somehow different…If he were the Israeli Trojan Horse, he could achieve the same Israeli-American end goal that Wesley Clark let fall in the media a decade or so ago…

Yes…'the trust is gone'…outsider or insider, I don't give a damn…Trump is treated a lot better than Ron Paul ever was by the MSM…and he knew just what buttons to push to get that commanding lead in the GOP…and the MSM was right there as his free megaphone…

I'd like some clarity on his Iran policy proposals…

K A

This man Trump knows that he can wail and bemoan and damn everybody about Syria and Iraq. Because nothing will change .The desired damage has been achieved
. He is in league ith those who brought the havoc to Syria nd Iraq. But he has to do something new on Iran. He has to change it. Because his paymaster knows that the current deal is not the right concluding script of the book on Iraq. He has to beat down on Iran deal. He has to bring war to Iran. He is pathetic charlaton. His cannon fodder are the intellectually emancipated Tea Bagger who thinks that by hurting Muslim inside and abroad ,US would be great again.

Rusty

Recall Trump had a private meeting with Sheldon Adelson. Unlike the rest of the field he doesn't need Adelson's money. However, it would not surprise me if Trump would like to ensure that Adelson doesn't spend millions on other candidates attacking Trump. In other words Trump doesn't need Adelson's money, but he also does not want Adelson's money being directed against him.

If this is the case, it might explain Trump's seemingly contradictory positions where he is peace-like on Russia, but not on Iran.

follyofwar

@Rusty – Adelson poured millions into Gingrich's campaign last time and it didn't get him anywhere. Adelson's money may hurt a candidate more than help him.

follyofwar

@Prinz – Regarding Iran, Trump has said that the deal is terrible, (without every being specific), but he's also added that he believes in honoring contracts. He's said something to the effect that he will honor the deal unless Iran cheats. That's not nearly as bad as Rubio and Cruz (and others), who have vowed, if elected, to tear up the agreement on day one.

One thing that Trump has said is hilarious and directed to the thousands of low information GOP voters. He's said that, per the agreement, we're about to give Iran billions of dollars. What he doesn't say is that it is their money which has been frozen all these years by the sanctions, and we are finally letting them have it back (well, maybe). There's no doubt in my mind that Trump knows this is the truth and just shows that all politicians lie.

Prinzowhales

That is good to hear

nomorewaryouprats

Trump is the most troubling because he is by far the most commanding figure we've ever seen on the national stage. Prinz, I truly understand your skepticism, his rhetoric on Iran is frightening and irresponsible, and I cringe to hear him go on in this vein during the debates. With his suggestion of safe zones within Syria, his vocal support for our criminal Saudi "ally", his familial relations, his tete-a-tete with Adelson, the unknown degree to which his financial health is leveraged by the big banks, his free media megaphone, his seemingly warm relations with Netanyahu, etc., he well may be the Trojan Horse you fear will complete PNAC's project and take out Syria and Iran. But neocuckservative Washington visibly hates him. The neoconservative punditry in the papers and on TV loathe him. Why? What is it about this man that all of these people who agree on virtually everything that is wrong about foreign policy are misreading?

follyofwar

@nomore – It is truly frightening that you might be right on Trump. On the other hand, we know what we are going to get with all the other "viable" candidates. At least with Trump, as I heard from one of those faux news talking heads, he's "like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get." (appropriate attribution was made to "Forrest Gump").

Monty Ahwazi

was this planned by the sailors and didn't work out due to the quick resolution? Were they banking on being considered as the prisoners of war so they can collect money from the Iranian and the US governments? I hope I'm being too cynical but it was mentioned in an article published by the HILL!

Michael Kenny

Regardless of the real reason, the important point is that Iran clearly has no wish to confront the US, whether directly or indirectly (for example, by going to war wirh Saudi Arabia). That makes sense, since if Iran was seeking a confrontation with the US it wouldn't have signed the nuclear deal. Logically, what Iran now wants is to get its oil flowing and grab Russia's oil markets while Putin is still under sanctions.

greg

Yep. I think the neocons were hoping fot some sort of belligerent response from Iran.
Outsmarted again.

follyofwar

MIchael – Duh, of course "Iran clearly has no wish to confront the US." Unlike the ISIL militants, they do not have a death wish. And, since they depend on Russia to have their back if push comes to shove, I can't see them doing anything to deliberately hurt the Russian economy.

Like Justin, I initially thought the official story made no sense. I suspected SEAL teams had tried to infiltrate or surveil. However later photos seemed to show un-SEAL like sailors. Skinny, short, etc. in some cases. Of course the SEALs are Navy and some could have been mixed with actual sailors.
The confusing and different explanations offered also seems very strange. This could simply be too many hands and ears in the chain of command. We don't know how the actual captured sailors communicated to their onshore officers. A planned insertion would have had a single cover story already in the hopper. In this case, it doesn't seem so.
Probably not a deliberate provocation. At the very least it should be embarrassing to the Navy. We'll see (perhaps) if someone is punished for "navigation errors" or running out of fuel. While it could happen (FUBAR), this sort of mistake is historically something the Navy considers very bad. Captains get relieved, etc. Though small boat operators are not quite in the same category.
At least this turned out okay. Give them credit for that.

Valerianus

If the captured sailors were merely the operating crews, then they wouldn't necessarily look like SEALs. I suspect that they were dropping some sort of passive sonar devices to monitor Iranian naval traffic around Farsi Island. If special operations forces were involved, they either deployed before the Iranians arrived, or someone was supposed to be picked up, but could not be on account of the Iranian Navy intercepting the boats. There's no way to be sure, unless by some happenstance the operational order is published.

archer

The U.S. wanted them to be killed or fired on to instigate a reason for war with Iran, it's the only thing that makes any sense.

Anti_Govt_Rebel

I don't believe the equipment malfunction story. Farsi Island is about midway between Saudi Arabia and Iran, roughly 70 miles from either coast. If the small US boats were traveling from Kuwait to Bahrain, they would have been, or should have been keeping close to the Saudi coast. For them to have "drifted" maybe 60 miles off course without asking for help or being picked up by another US vessel is simply unbelievable.

Iran has the right to challenge any ship entering Iranian waters, just as the US would if an Iranian or other ship was close to the US shore.

But in fact, the US really has no defense justification for even being in the Persian Gulf. So the US presence is and always has been a provocation and is nothing more than part of the overall strategy of conquest.

Andrewp111

How do we know those boats actually entered Iranian waters? They could have been hugging the Saudi coast and grabbed by an Iranian raiding party. After all, Iran and Saudi Arabia are practically at war. The official story is all lies and cover-ups, so this narrative is as good as any other until we have more real facts.

I mostly agree with your statement and I do agree 100% with the point you’re making.
However, I believe that it has been proven almost beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” never really actually happened. The Naval officers on the ship at the time may have really “thought” that something did happen, but again, I believe that it has been proven that the initial incident that was said to be a blip on the radar showing that the North Vietnamese ship fired at the US ship was actually a “psy-op” (or false flag) of sorts engineered to make it appear that the North Vietnamese actually fired at the ship, when in fact they had not.

No matter whatever truely happened that day, the one fact that remains is that warhawks throughout America had wished ten of their own were killed that day at the hands of Iran.

Fred

I heard much criticism of the officer who apologized, it all seemed to be coming from people who would wet their pants if an Iranian gunboat pulled up alongside them.

Fred

So according to the Navy itself, they are incapable of going from point A to point B without having mechanical difficulties or getting lost? Taxpayer money well spent.

Andrewp111

We don't actually know that those boats were grabbed in Iranian waters. Everything else in the official story (stories) is a lie, so why not that?

dmdeedee

Let's all agree on the one major issue and that is, we were LIED to again. Over and over again, the sheer propaganda we are fed is to be as useful as an old newspaper. Nothing is as it seems and I mean nothing!
And for Trump, he can buy advisers of the highest quality to give him real facts and opinion and strategies. Unlike the present administration which get the crazy neocons opinions, knowledge and strategies. All bent on war.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].